Search

Background:End-of-life (EoL) care volunteers in hospitals are a novel approach to support patients and their close ones. The iLIVE Volunteer Study supported hospital volunteer coordinators from five European countries to design and implement an EoL care volunteer service on general wards in their hospitals. This study aimed to identify and explore barriers and facilitators to the implementation of EoL care volunteer services in the five hospitals. Methods: Volunteer coordinators (VCs) from the Netherlands (NL), Norway (NO), Slovenia (SI), Spain (ES) and United Kingdom (UK) participated in a focus group interview and subsequent in-depth one-to-one interviews. A theory-inspired framework based on the five domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used for data collection and analysis. Results from the focus group were depicted in radar charts per hospital. Results: Barriers across all hospitals were the COVID-19 pandemic delaying the implementation process, and the lack of recognition of the added value of EoL care volunteers by hospital staff. Site-specific barriers were struggles with promoting the service in a highly structured setting with many stakeholders (NL), negative views among nurses on hospital volunteering (NL, NO), a lack of support from healthcare professionals and the management (SI, ES), and uncertainty about their role in implementation among VCs (ES). Site-specific facilitators were training of volunteers (NO, SI, NL), involving volunteers in promoting the service (NO), and education and awareness for healthcare professionals about the role and boundaries of volunteers (UK). Conclusion: Establishing a comprehensive EoL care volunteer service for patients in non-specialist palliative care wards involves multiple considerations including training, creating awareness and ensuring management support. Implementation requires involvement of s

Background Developments in digital health has the potential to transform the delivery of health and social care to help citizens manage their own health. Currently there is a lack consensus about digital health research priorities in palliative care and a lack theories about how these technologies might improve care outcomes. Therefore, it is important for healthcare leaders to identify innovations to ensure that an increasingly frail population have appropriate access to palliative care services. Consequently, it is important to articulate research priorities as the first step to determine how we should allocate finite resources to a field saturated with rapidly developing innovations. Objective To identify research priority areas for digital health in palliative care. Methods We selected the digital health trends, most relevant to palliative care, from a list of emerging trends reported by a world-leading Institute of quantitative futurists. We conducted two rounds of Delphi questionnaire, followed by a consensus meeting and a public engagement workshop to establish final consensus on research priorities for digital technology in palliative care. We used the views of public representatives to gain their perspectives of the agreed priorities. Results One hundred and three experts (representing 11 countries) participated in the 1st Delphi round. Fifty-five participated in the 2nd round (53% of 1st round). Eleven experts attended the final consensus meeting. We identified 16 priorities areas, which involved many applications of technologies, including care for patients and caregivers, self-management and reporting of disease, education and training, communication, care coordination and research methodology. We summarised the priority areas into eight topic areas, which were: big data, mobile devices, telehealth and telemedicine, virtual reality, artificial intelligence, the smart home, biotechnology and digital legacy. Conclusions The identified priorities in this pa

Background Developments in digital health has the potential to transform the delivery of health and social care to help citizens manage their own health. Currently there is a lack consensus about digital health research priorities in palliative care and a lack theories about how these technologies might improve care outcomes. Therefore, it is important for healthcare leaders to identify innovations to ensure that an increasingly frail population have appropriate access to palliative care services. Consequently, it is important to articulate research priorities as the first step to determine how we should allocate finite resources to a field saturated with rapidly developing innovations. Objective To identify research priority areas for digital health in palliative care. Methods We selected the digital health trends, most relevant to palliative care, from a list of emerging trends reported by a world-leading Institute of quantitative futurists. We conducted two rounds of Delphi questionnaire, followed by a consensus meeting and a public engagement workshop to establish final consensus on research priorities for digital technology in palliative care. We used the views of public representatives to gain their perspectives of the agreed priorities. Results One hundred and three experts (representing 11 countries) participated in the 1st Delphi round. Fifty-five participated in the 2nd round (53% of 1st round). Eleven experts attended the final consensus meeting. We identified 16 priorities areas, which involved many applications of technologies, including care for patients and caregivers, self-management and reporting of disease, education and training, communication, care coordination and research methodology. We summarised the priority areas into eight topic areas, which were: big data, mobile devices, telehealth and telemedicine, virtual reality, artificial intelligence, the smart home, biotechnology and digital legacy. Conclusions The identified priorities in this pa

Introduction Adequately addressing the needs of patients at the end of life and their relatives is pivotal in preventing unnecessary suffering and optimising their quality of life. The purpose of the iLIVE study is to contribute to high-quality personalised care at the end of life in different countries and cultures, by investigating the experiences, concerns, preferences and use of care of terminally ill patients and their families. Methods and analysis The iLIVE study is an international cohort study in which patients with an estimated life expectancy of 6 months or less are followed up until they die. In total, 2200 patients will be included in 11 countries, that is, 200 per country. In addition, one relative per patient is invited to participate. All participants will be asked to fill in a questionnaire, at baseline and after 4 weeks. If a patient dies within 6 months of follow-up, the relative will be asked to fill in a post-bereavement questionnaire. Healthcare use in the last week of life will be evaluated as well; healthcare staff who attended the patient will be asked to fill in a brief questionnaire to evaluate the care that was provided. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with patients, relatives and healthcare professionals in all countries to gain more in-depth insights. Ethics and dissemination The cohort study has been approved by ethics committees and the institutional review boards (IRBs) of participating institutes in all countries. Results will be disseminated through the project website, publications in scientific journals and at conferences. Within the project, there will be a working group focusing on enhancing the engagement of the community at large with the reality of death and dying.

Introduction Adequately addressing the needs of patients at the end of life and their relatives is pivotal in preventing unnecessary suffering and optimising their quality of life. The purpose of the iLIVE study is to contribute to high-quality personalised care at the end of life in different countries and cultures, by investigating the experiences, concerns, preferences and use of care of terminally ill patients and their families. Methods and analysis The iLIVE study is an international cohort study in which patients with an estimated life expectancy of 6 months or less are followed up until they die. In total, 2200 patients will be included in 11 countries, that is, 200 per country. In addition, one relative per patient is invited to participate. All participants will be asked to fill in a questionnaire, at baseline and after 4 weeks. If a patient dies within 6 months of follow-up, the relative will be asked to fill in a post-bereavement questionnaire. Healthcare use in the last week of life will be evaluated as well; healthcare staff who attended the patient will be asked to fill in a brief questionnaire to evaluate the care that was provided. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with patients, relatives and healthcare professionals in all countries to gain more in-depth insights. Ethics and dissemination The cohort study has been approved by ethics committees and the institutional review boards (IRBs) of participating institutes in all countries. Results will be disseminated through the project website, publications in scientific journals and at conferences. Within the project, there will be a working group focusing on enhancing the engagement of the community at large with the reality of death and dying. Trial registration number NCT04271085.

Background Developments in digital health has the potential to transform the delivery of health and social care to help citizens manage their own health. Currently there is a lack consensus about digital health research priorities in palliative care and a lack theories about how these technologies might improve care outcomes. Therefore, it is important for healthcare leaders to identify innovations to ensure that an increasingly frail population have appropriate access to palliative care services. Consequently, it is important to articulate research priorities as the first step to determine how we should allocate finite resources to a field saturated with rapidly developing innovations. Objective To identify research priority areas for digital health in palliative care. Methods We selected the digital health trends, most relevant to palliative care, from a list of emerging trends reported by a world-leading Institute of quantitative futurists. We conducted two rounds of Delphi questionnaire, followed by a consensus meeting and a public engagement workshop to establish final consensus on research priorities for digital technology in palliative care. We used the views of public representatives to gain their perspectives of the agreed priorities. Results One hundred and three experts (representing 11 countries) participated in the 1st Delphi round. Fifty-five participated in the 2nd round (53% of 1st round). Eleven experts attended the final consensus meeting. We identified 16 priorities areas, which involved many applications of technologies, including care for patients and caregivers, self-management and reporting of disease, education and training, communication, care coordination and research methodology. We summarised the priority areas into eight topic areas, which were: big data, mobile devices, telehealth and telemedicine, virtual reality, artificial intelligence, the smart home, biotechnology and digital legacy. Conclusions The identified priorities in this pa

Background Developments in digital health (describing technologies which use computing platforms, connectivity, software, and sensors for health care and related purposes) has the potential to transform the delivery of health and social care to help citizens manage their own health. Currently, we lack consensus about digital health research priorities in palliative care and lack theories about how these technologies might improve care outcomes. Global palliative care need is expected to increase due to the consequences of an ageing population; therefore, it is important for healthcare leaders to identify innovations to ensure that an increasingly frail population have appropriate access to palliative care services. Consequently, it is important to articulate research priorities as the first step to determine how we should allocate finite resources to a field saturated with rapidly developing innovations. Aims To identify research priority areas for digital health in palliative care. Methods We selected the digital health trends, most relevant to palliative care, from a list of emerging trends reported by the ‘Future Today Institute’. We conducted a modified Delphi process and consensus meeting with palliative care experts to identify research priorities. We used the views of public representatives to gain their perspectives of the agreed priorities. Results One hundred and three experts (representing 11 countries) participated in the 1st Delphi round. Fifty-five participated in the 2nd round (53% of 1st round). Eleven experts attended the final consensus meeting. We identified 16 priorities areas, which were summarised into eight themes. These themes were: big data, mobile devices, telehealth and telemedicine, virtual reality, artificial intelligence, the smart home, biotechnology and digital legacy. Conclusions The identified priorities in this paper represent a wide range of important emerging areas in field of digital health, personalised medicine, and data scien

BACKGROUND: Medical robots are increasingly used for a variety of applications in healthcare. Robots have mainly been used to support surgical procedures, and for a variety of assistive uses in dementia and elderly care. To date, there has been limited debate about the potential opportunities and risks of robotics in other areas of palliative, supportive and end-of-life care. AIM: The objective of this article is to examine the possible future impact of medical robotics on palliative, supportive care and end-of-life care. Specifically, we will discuss the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of this technology. METHODS: A SWOT analysis to understand the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of robotic technology in palliative and supportive care. RESULTS: The opportunities of robotics in palliative, supportive and end-of-life care include a number of assistive, therapeutic, social and educational uses. However, there are a number of technical, societal, economic and ethical factors which need to be considered to ensure meaningful use of this technology in palliative care. CONCLUSION: Robotics could have a number of potential applications in palliative, supportive and end-of-life care. Future work should evaluate the health-related, economic, societal and ethical implications of using this technology. There is a need for collaborative research to establish use-cases and inform policy, to ensure the appropriate use (or non-use) of robots for people with serious illness.

BACKGROUND: Medical robots are increasingly used for a variety of applications in healthcare. Robots have mainly been used to support surgical procedures, and for a variety of assistive uses in dementia and elderly care. To date, there has been limited debate about the potential opportunities and risks of robotics in other areas of palliative, supportive and end-of-life care. AIM: The objective of this article is to examine the possible future impact of medical robotics on palliative, supportive care and end-of-life care. Specifically, we will discuss the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) of this technology. METHODS: A SWOT analysis to understand the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of robotic technology in palliative and supportive care. RESULTS: The opportunities of robotics in palliative, supportive and end-of-life care include a number of assistive, therapeutic, social and educational uses. However, there are a number of technical, societal, economic and ethical factors which need to be considered to ensure meaningful use of this technology in palliative care. CONCLUSION: Robotics could have a number of potential applications in palliative, supportive and end-of-life care. Future work should evaluate the health-related, economic, societal and ethical implications of using this technology. There is a need for collaborative research to establish use-cases and inform policy, to ensure the appropriate use (or non-use) of robots for people with serious illness.